Can someone own a culture? Why should 'appropriation' be inappropriate?

[Sabine Grant]

I understand what you did, but to talk about 'borrowing' already presumes that there is an owner to be borrowed from. I simply don't believe anyone owns a culture (or a general cultural idea, like an art movement) so there is no-one to 'borrow' from and no-one who has the right to prevent 'borrowing'. Indeed, Native Americans are 'borrowing' just as much when they practise Native American cultural ideas -- they're borrowing from previous Native Americans.

Current generation of Seminoles members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida are not "borrowing" the "cultural ideas" they "practice". They are cultivating and nurturing practices and traditions as a continuum of the practices and traditions of their ancestors which illustrate their ancestors' and their OWN ethnic and cultural identity as Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Same applying to another example of a native and unique cultural and ethnic identity people such as the Maori. I am rather certain that when Jo and her family (Maori) "practice" Maori traditions and "cultural ideas", they are cultivating and nurturing practices and traditions which illustrate their ancestors' and their OWN ethnic and cultural identity as Maori. The tattoo Jo has around her neck has the same significance and meaningfulness than it had around the neck of her ancestors. The Maori rites escorting a funeral or burial of her loved ones have the same significance and meaningfulness they had for her ancestors. It is a continuum of the manifestation of their ethnic and cultural identity which also carries a unique history which her people lived and experienced.

Who else than Native American Tribes are the legitimate owners of their cultural and ethnic identity? Whose ancestors suffered through the repression and persecutions targeting their cultural and ethnic identity?

"Who else" is generally a weak argument, but it's also the wrong question.

It is not, considering I specifically used the term "legitimacy" previously and deployed efforts to illustrate the character of legitimacy via those questions.

Who owns the idea of the wheel? The answer is not a specific person; nobody owns it. Not everything has an owner. Art movements don't have owners, even though many of them can be traced to a person or small group of people in a particular time and geography.

I have been developing NOT on an "art movement" or "the idea of a wheel" but on a people and their specific cultural and ethnic identity and why they detain a legitimacy regarding the continuum of the manifestation of their cultural and ethnic identity which an outside group does not and cannot have.

Yes, they do. They would legitimately have a "copyright" on their identity.

Why? How far does this copyright extend? When does it expire?

If I went to a restaurant selling Native American-style cuisine, should the restaurant have to pay royalties to every Native-American alive? Why or why not?

The fact I placed "copyright" in quotes was meant to indicate it was not a literal copyright. It was meant to illustrate (again) the reality that whether it be the Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida (while adding now my newly cited example of the Maori) they detain a legitimacy regarding the experiences surrounding their history and ethnic and cultural identity still illustrated today by symbols, imagery, traditions and practices which outside groups unrelated to them cannot claim to detain.

It is called legitimacy. Again,who other than Native American Tribes are the legitimate nurturers of Native American Tribes cultural and ethnic identities? Who other than Native American Tribes established via their history and cultural practices the cultural blue prints of currently living members of those Tribes? Did an outside group not related to Seminoles in Florida experience and live the Seminole Tribe of Florida entire history and cultural practices? Did the same outside group have ancestors not related to the Seminole Tribe of Florida who experienced and lived the colonial oppression and persecutions targeting their cultural and ethnic identity?

You're once again begging the question. To say they are the 'legitimate' owners doesn't help me understand anything. It's like explaining the soporific power of a drug by reference to its sleep-inducing effect.

I stated "legitimacy" then presented a series of questions reflecting the character of legitimacy. You seem to separate the current ethnic and cultural identity of a defined people from their entire history which they, and they alone, lived and experienced. You seem to be denying the reality that a current member of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, his/her ethnic and cultural identity, is the direct product of blue prints set throughout the history of the Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Same with the Maori people. The traditions, symbols, practices throughout those current generations is the continuum of the manifestation of their uniquely and legitimately experienced and lived history.

For there to be 'legitimate' owners, that means a culture must be able to be owned. Why is it that you think a culture can be owned in the first place? Can art movements be owned?

I have several times used the specific terms of "cultural and ethnic IDENTITY". I have explained why symbols, imagery, practices and traditions are the manifestation of the history experienced and lived by a people of a specific ethnic and cultural IDENTITY. They own that identity and have a justified claim to preserve and protect the manifestation of their own identity inseparable from their lived and experienced history, preserving it and protecting it from being exploited.

IMO you are not acknowledging the reality that the blue prints of current generations were set via the history and experiencing of that history by the legitimate members of the ethnic and cultural group known as Seminole Tribe of Florida. You cannot separate cultural sensitivity today from a group's history experienced and lived by the members of the group.

Each Seminole alive today lived her own life. She did not live the lives of her ancestors. A collective unconscious is a nice romantic idea, but it's not reality.

I will safely assume you are in no way acquainted or have communications and interactions with current younger generations of members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Yet you portray those generations attachment to and determination to cultivate and nurture the manifestation of their cultural and ethnic identity escorted by a history their ancestors lived and experienced as a "collective unconscious". That absolutely absurd armchair psy based pronouncement has NO basis whatsoever.

You want to speak about "reality", that is exactly what I stated. And a reality I have far greater insights in than you can claim to considering I am acquainted with several members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The 25 year old male nurse who is my co worker and a member of the Tribe is not keeping his hair growing very long (which he keeps in a pony tail) for aesthetic reasons or because he thinks "it's cool".When his mother dies, he will cut his hair. It has a specific significance and meaningfulness. It is the continuum of the manifestation of his own ethnic and cultural identity escorted by a history his ancestors lived and experienced.

I am not sure why you think that a claim to legitimacy is somehow a matter of blaming you for what your ancestors may or may have not done.

No: that was not my intended meaning, and I apologise for my poor wording.

Since you agree that I do not inherit the sins of my ancestors, I also do not inherit exclusive rights to ideas they and other people who lived near them had. You can legitimately inherit specific things from your parents -- their material possessions -- but they can't leave you exclusive use of their culture. It doesn't belong to you any more than it belonged to them, because cultures don't belong to anyone.

Are you denying that the Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida have a legitimate claim of ownership over their own cultural and ethnic identity specifically defined as Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida? Are you denying that the Maori people have a legitimate claim of ownership over their own ethnic and cultural identity specifically defined as Maori?

Speaking of athletic teams borrowing symbols, images and names from Native Americans, you seem to not be aware about the controversy surrounding the use of the name "Redskins" by a pro football team and other protests issued by various Native American Tribes regarding other sports teams using cartoonish mascots relying on Native American symbols.

Not only am I aware of it, it makes my point. Imagine you have people of a Native American tribe, and some of them do not want to 'license' their name and image to a football team and some of them do (and want money for it). Who makes the determination? Self-appointed leaders of the tribe? Democratically elected leaders? When did the elections take place? When does the copyright on their property expire?

In the specific and cited case of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Elders of the Tribe made the decision to grant their Ok for FSU to use symbols and a live representation of Chief Osceola and Renegade illustrating the history of the Tribe. As a result FSU benefited of an exemption from the The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) who, at the time, was considering sanctions against several athletic teams based on their use of Native American cartoonish symbols and characters , some of them being defined as "hostile and abusive" by the speaker for the NCAA. I will try to find the interview on line reflecting his comments on behalf of the NCAA.

As to "do and want money for it", there was not such transaction between FSU and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. In fact if any money involved, I had specified earlier that among the donors TO Florida State University are the Seminole owners of the casinos, those donations being redirected to scholarships.Among members of the football team Booster Club are 3 I know in person to be Seminoles who donate to the Booster Club supporting the football team known as the Seminoles aside from the other donations from other members of the Tribe supporting a variety of scholarships.

Let me see if you can relate to this or at least empathize : as a gay male, it is your identity and one like other millions of gay persons you have had to affirm in response to attempts to trivialize, ridicule it and more importantly invalidate as legitimate. You are among those millions of gay persons who have experienced and lived and still live and experience today the social stigmatization of "your kind". How would it not be a morally justified response on your part to preserve and protect your legitimate identity from being exploited by groups who do not demonstrate any sensitivity to your identity as a gay person? How would you like for an athletic team of heterosexual males to name themselves "The Gays" while parading a cartoonish mascot representative of your identity as a gay person?

Mostly I wouldn't care, since I don't watch sport. But if I were offended, it wouldn't be because I'm the 'legitimate' owner of gay culture.

I am baffled that a gay person would change the term "identity" I specifically used into "gay culture". You would be one of the rare gay persons who would consider their sexual orientation to be a "culture". I will also add that educated heterosexual circles do not even refer to sexual orientation as "culture" let alone "gay culture" Where did you get that from?

Think about an inversion of the case: what if homosexual men started a sport team called 'The Gays' and they paraded around a cartoonish mascot? That could still be in bad taste, don't you think? Or would they have the 'right' to do whatever they want with gay culture because they're the 'legitimate' owners?

Nobody owns gay culture.

There we go again with the "gay culture" crap. You do not seem to understand what the term "identity" signifies. A term which also applies to ethnic and cultural when bonded together. Thus my having used SEVERAL times the term "ethnic and cultural identity" when referring to the Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

The world would be a better place if the majority of us were to consider sensitivity to other ethnic and cultural groups' identities as an important contribution to motivating a peaceful coexistence within the diversity of ethnic and cultural groups rather than adopting apathy while viewing those groups in a vacuum as if who they are today is not the product of their history. More importantly as if they have no legitimacy to protect and preserve their heritage from exploitation.

They have that legitimacy if they own their heritage, but I'm challenging the idea that a culture can be owned.

You are still not understanding that it is a matter of IDENTITY, cultural and ethnic and shaped by the history experienced and lived by their ancestors. Are you denying the reality that Seminole Tribe of Florida reflects such IDENTITY?

Speaking of Seminoles who are still protesting the use by FSU of symbols, name and images related to the history of The Seminole Tribe of Florida, it is the case for some of the Seminoles under the banner of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma.

So, more powerful Seminoles (the ones who 'licensed' their image) got their way, and the less-powerful Seminoles (the ones who don't want symbols used or 'licensed out') did not get their way.

I took the time to detail WHY the agreement and OK came from the Seminole Tribe of Florida and specifically the Elders of that specific tribe. Are you at all paying attention to all the details I provided? Because your conclusive comment is totally disconnected from the details I provided.

Do you think that is legitimate? Who determined that the Seminoles who agreed to the Seminole image being used were more 'legitimate' than the ones who did not agree?

Again and based on what I detailed and related, because the College known as FSU, located and operated in Florida consulted with the specific Seminole Tribe known as Seminole Tribe of FLORIDA who are the party most invested to preserve and protect symbols, imagery, characters reflecting the history of their Tribe, located here in Florida. The current elected Chairman of the Seminole Tribe of Florida or Chief Jim Billie is the official representative of the tribe in Florida. Not of the Oklahoma Tribe. Any potential legal issues and liabilities affecting the tribe are dealt with by the elected members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida not by the Oklahoma Tribe. All Florida statutes are meant to apply to , including the legal existence of the Tribe and subsequent by laws in relation to their status as a tribe, the Seminole Tribe of Florida NOT the Oklahoma Tribe. Their ownership of gambling casinos is exercised by the FLORIDA tribe not Oklahoma tribe. Exemptions granted by the State of Florida regarding gambling facilities concern the Florida Tribe not any other tribe located out of State.

Please, do not make me repeat what I had previously detailed and have now detailed even more. If you cannot understand the concept of what would legally stand in the State of Florida and what would not, which hierarchy within the tribe speaks for the specific tribe of Seminole Tribe of Florida and why such Tribe has the greatest invested interest in protecting and preserving the use of symbols etc...by an establishment operated, funded and located in Florida, I totally give up in deploying any further efforts.

The above is a demonstration of sensitivity to the legitimately acquired heritage by the Seminole Tribe of Florida. That because FSU has recognized their legitimacy and further consulted with the Elders before including the current symbols illustrating the cultural and historical heritage of the Seminole Tribe native of Florida.

The outcome of the above is beneficial to both groups. The Tribe benefiting of the PR effect of such large College POSITIVELY promoting the Seminoles native of Florida history and cultural heritage while FSU benefits of the financial donations of the Seminole Casino owners to support a variety of FSU scholarships.

Why should cultural histories be portrayed exclusively positively?

That was NOT my contention. I certainly would not expect the period of history defined as the Rise of the Third Reich to be portrayed positively to include the influence of Pan Germanism (cultural) as the ideological booster to a Teutonic vision of Germany resulting in the adopting of concepts such as a Deutschland Uber Alles, white supremacist motivated expansionism and the acute phase of the orchestration of ethnic cleansing and genocides. Clear enough for you?

But I do expect that the history of groups which were persecuted, exposed to ethnic cleansing, genocides, stealing of their land, oppression and repression of their ethnic and cultural identity be shown sensitivity. Rather than what symbolizes their history and cultural and ethnic identity be used in any mocking or ridiculing manner. The use of cartoonish mascots has been brought up by me specifically several times.

Do you think White people have a duty to protect their culture from PR damage by denying and minimising White colonialism?

I have no sympathy for groups who have committed atrocities and what would stand as crimes against humanity if brought up to trial today, no sympathy for any efforts on their part to DENY the atrocities they committed or minimize those atrocities. I am not sure why you would expect sensitivity to be demonstrated to such groups so that it satisfies their PR image.

 

[Metaphor]

Current generation of Seminoles members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida are not "borrowing" the "cultural ideas" they "practice". They are cultivating and nurturing practices and traditions as a continuum of the practices and traditions of their ancestors which illustrate their ancestors' and their OWN ethnic and cultural identity as Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Of course they are 'borrowing' them. They didn't come up with them, did they?

Same applying to another example of a native and unique cultural and ethnic identity people such as the Maori. I am rather certain that when Jo and her family (Maori) "practice" Maori traditions and "cultural ideas", they are cultivating and nurturing practices and traditions which illustrate their ancestors' and their OWN ethnic and cultural identity as Maori. The tattoo Jo has around her neck has the same significance and meaningfulness than it had around the neck of her ancestors. The Maori rites escorting a funeral or burial of her loved ones have the same significance and meaningfulness they had for her ancestors. It is a continuum of the manifestation of their ethnic and cultural identity which also carries a unique history which her people lived and experienced.

You've simply restated the same assertion and I'm telling you I simply reject your assertion.

It is not, considering I specifically used the term "legitimacy" previously and deployed efforts to illustrate the character of legitimacy via those questions.

What makes you think a culture can be owned? You've still not answered that question. You go straight to assuming it can be owned, and to you the rightful owners seem obvious.

I have been developing NOT on an "art movement" or "the idea of a wheel" but on a people and their specific cultural and ethnic identity and why they detain a legitimacy regarding the continuum of the manifestation of their cultural and ethnic identity which an outside group does not and cannot have.

Yet you still haven't answered my question. Why does having a 'cultural and ethnic identity' mean you become the legitimate owner of a culture?

The fact I placed "copyright" in quotes was meant to indicate it was not a literal copyright. It was meant to illustrate (again) the reality that whether it be the Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida (while adding now my newly cited example of the Maori) they detain a legitimacy regarding the experiences surrounding their history and ethnic and cultural identity still illustrated today by symbols, imagery, traditions and practices which outside groups unrelated to them cannot claim to detain.

You've asserted this quite a few times already. You assert that 'outside' groups cannot claim to detain the symbols, imagery, traditions and practices, but you don't state why. Is it because it's not their identity? So what?

It is called legitimacy. Again,who other than Native American Tribes are the legitimate nurturers of Native American Tribes cultural and ethnic identities? Who other than Native American Tribes established via their history and cultural practices the cultural blue prints of currently living members of those Tribes? Did an outside group not related to Seminoles in Florida experience and live the Seminole Tribe of Florida entire history and cultural practices? Did the same outside group have ancestors not related to the Seminole Tribe of Florida who experienced and lived the colonial oppression and persecutions targeting their cultural and ethnic identity?

Yes, the Seminoles who lived and died experienced their own stories and history. The Seminoles alive today did not experience their stories and history. They're different people.

I stated "legitimacy" then presented a series of questions reflecting the character of legitimacy. You seem to separate the current ethnic and cultural identity of a defined people from their entire history which they, and they alone, lived and experienced.

No-one alive lived and experienced anything that happened to someone 150 years ago.

You seem to be denying the reality that a current member of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, his/her ethnic and cultural identity, is the direct product of blue prints set throughout the history of the Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

No, I'm not denying that. I'm asking why they 'legitimately' own the culture they identify with.

Why do you think a culture can be owned?

I have several times used the specific terms of "cultural and ethnic IDENTITY". I have explained why symbols, imagery, practices and traditions are the manifestation of the history experienced and lived by a people of a specific ethnic and cultural IDENTITY. They own that identity and have a justified claim to preserve and protect the manifestation of their own identity inseparable from their lived and experienced history, preserving it and protecting it from being exploited.

Do you identify as a woman? Are you the legitimate owner of feminine culture?

I will safely assume you are in no way acquainted or have communications and interactions with current younger generations of members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Yet you portray those generations attachment to and determination to cultivate and nurture the manifestation of their cultural and ethnic identity escorted by a history their ancestors lived and experienced as a "collective unconscious". That absolutely absurd armchair psy based pronouncement has NO basis whatsoever.

They have every right to be attached to the culture. Who's stopping them?

You want to speak about "reality", that is exactly what I stated. And a reality I have far greater insights in than you can claim to considering I am acquainted with several members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The 25 year old male nurse who is my co worker and a member of the Tribe is not keeping his hair growing very long (which he keeps in a pony tail) for aesthetic reasons or because he thinks "it's cool".When his mother dies, he will cut his hair. It has a specific significance and meaningfulness. It is the continuum of the manifestation of his own ethnic and cultural identity escorted by a history his ancestors lived and experienced.

If someone, not a Seminole, heard this story and wanted to do the exact same thing, does a Seminole have the right to feel aggrieved about it?

Are you denying that the Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida have a legitimate claim of ownership over their own cultural and ethnic identity specifically defined as Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida?

Do you think a culture can be owned? You've not yet answered this directly. What features are necessary for a culture to be owned? You've already stated that you don't believe art movements can be owned.

Are you denying that the Maori people have a legitimate claim of ownership over their own ethnic and cultural identity specifically defined as Maori?

I don't know, since I don't know what you mean by 'legitimate claim of ownership' over one's identity. What does it mean to own a culture? Does it entail legal rights? What, specifically?

Please note that I am not asking about what it means to identify with a culture, but to own it

In the specific and cited case of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Elders of the Tribe made the decision to grant their Ok for FSU to use symbols and a live representation of Chief Osceola and Renegade illustrating the history of the Tribe.

So it is the Elders of the tribe that have the right to determine how their cultural and ethnic identity is going to be exploited. What if they are going against the wishes of at least some of their tribespeople? Do you think every Seminole was in agreement that their image should be used for a sporting team?

As to "do and want money for it", there was not such transaction between FSU and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

I did not imply anything of the sort.

You think 'the Seminoles' own the culture of the Seminoles. I'm asking what happens when people within the tribe disagree about how their image is to be used. Do you think every Seminole in Florida agreed to their image being used? Are they also not 'owners' of their culture?

I am baffled that a gay person would change the term "identity" I specifically used into "gay culture". You would be one of the rare gay persons who would consider their sexual orientation to be a "culture". I will also add that educated heterosexual circles do not even refer to sexual orientation as "culture" let alone "gay culture" Where did you get that from?

I identify as a gay male, but what does it mean to 'own' a gay identity? I'm baffled as to what you mean. What is it that I 'legitimately' own?

There we go again with the "gay culture" crap. You do not seem to understand what the term "identity" signifies. A term which also applies to ethnic and cultural when bonded together. Thus my having used SEVERAL times the term "ethnic and cultural identity" when referring to the Seminoles of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

You are correct. I'm baffled as to what it would mean for me to 'own' my gay identity, and what rights you think that gives me.

You are still not understanding that it is a matter of IDENTITY, cultural and ethnic and shaped by the history experienced and lived by their ancestors. Are you denying the reality that Seminole Tribe of Florida reflects such IDENTITY?

If someone 'identifies' as a Seminole, does that mean they own Seminole culture? I suspect you think anyone who can't claim genetic lineage to previous Seminoles can't choose to identify with them.

What does it mean to own a culture?

I took the time to detail WHY the agreement and OK came from the Seminole Tribe of Florida and specifically the Elders of that specific tribe. Are you at all paying attention to all the details I provided? Because your conclusive comment is totally disconnected from the details I provided

We've already established that

i) Some Seminoles agreed to the use (the Elders and whoever agreed with them)
ii) Some Seminoles did not agree

Are the Seminoles in group ii) also legitimate owners of the Seminole culture or not? How do we know that the 'Elders' of the Seminole tribe have the 'legitimate' interest of the culture at heart? How do we know they represent the majority?

All Florida statutes are meant to apply to , including the legal existence of the Tribe and subsequent by laws in relation to their status as a tribe, the Seminole Tribe of Florida NOT the Oklahoma Tribe. Their ownership of gambling casinos is exercised by the FLORIDA tribe not Oklahoma tribe. Exemptions granted by the State of Florida regarding gambling facilities concern the Florida Tribe not any other tribe located out of State.

America's racist laws granting semi-sovereignty to Native American tribes are a different issue all together.

Please, do not make me repeat what I had previously detailed and have now detailed even more. If you cannot understand the concept of what would legally stand in the State of Florida and what would not, which hierarchy within the tribe speaks for the specific tribe of Seminole Tribe of Florida and why such Tribe has the greatest invested interest in protecting and preserving the use of symbols etc...by an establishment operated, funded and located in Florida, I totally give up in deploying any further efforts.

Then answer my question directly: do you think a culture can be owned?

I have no sympathy for groups who have committed atrocities and what would stand as crimes against humanity if brought up to trial today, no sympathy for any efforts on their part to DENY the atrocities they committed or minimize those atrocities. I am not sure why you would expect sensitivity to be demonstrated to such groups so that it satisfies their PR image.

You say that the owners of a cultural and ethnic identity have the moral right to protect their cultural and ethnic identity, no?

Do neo-Nazis have the moral right to try and protect the cultural and ethnic identity of the Third Reich?